Oregon and two other states are huffing and puffing toward legalizing weed. But don’t buy that bong just yet.

Harking back to the days when everything that mattered in
politics was decided in smoke-filled rooms, the Western states seem
poised for an insurrection.

This November will
mark the first time in U.S. history that three states—Oregon, Washington
and Colorado—have marijuana legalization measures on the ballot at the
same time.

Since 1972, only eight other full-on legalization measures have made it to state ballots. Each failed.

The only previous
time Oregon tried to fully legalize pot was in 1986, amid booming
Reaganomics and the generous self-congratulation of a Grammy-winning “We
Are the World.” Oregon voters were much less generous, however; they
defeated the proposed measure with a 74 percent rejection rate.

The situation has changed quite a bit since then.

Seventeen states and
the District of Columbia have approved the cultivation and use of
medical marijuana to treat specific conditions defined by law. In
Oregon, these conditions include glaucoma, cancer, HIV, severe pain,
Alzheimer’s-associated agitation, nausea and muscle spasms.

The proliferation of
medical marijuana laws is a broadly supported development. In a
Mason-Dixon poll conducted this year, 74 percent of Americans said they
wanted the federal government to respect medical marijuana laws. Even a
majority of Republicans (67 percent) and people 65 and older (64
percent)—approved keeping the federal government from enforcing
marijuana laws in states that had voted to allow medical marijuana use.

Last
year, national Gallup polling showed for the first time a
parchment-thin majority of Americans favored out-and-out legalization of
pot, by a margin of 50 percent to 46 percent. This is a jump from the
44 percent who favored legalization in 2009 and the 31 percent in favor
back in 2000.

Much of this change
is demographic. Boomers and younger adults tend to favor legalization,
while the Greatest Generation isn’t quite so keen.

These inexorable
demographic shifts, combined with organized political will, might just
make 2012 a sea-change year in national marijuana politics.

One of the chief
figures in this upswing is Paul Stanford, primary author of the Oregon
Cannabis Tax Act—otherwise known as Measure 80—which will be up for
voter approval in November.

Stanford
has been a longtime pot activist and an often controversial figure in
Oregon, in part for his founding of an organization called the Hemp and
Cannabis Foundation (THCF), which charges a fee to hook up would-be
medical marijuana patients with 420-friendly physicians in order to help
them obtain medical marijuana cards.

Stanford
has also been the author of a number of failed marijuana legalization
efforts since 1988, each one a slight recasting of the last. This is the
first time one of Stanford’s measures has made it onto the ballot via
the initiative process. Stanford and his supporters gathered more than
165,000 signatures. Just 88,887 of these were determined to be valid,
but it was enough to push the initiative over the 87,213 needed to
qualify as a ballot measure.

The Oregon Cannabis
Tax Act is by far the most expansive and least restrictive of the
legalization measures currently before voters in the three states.

The other two,
Washington state’s New Approach Washington (I-502) and Colorado’s
Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act (A-64), would both put strong limits
on personal possession and cultivation. (See comparison table.)

The
Oregon Cannabis Tax Act, on the other hand, offers no restrictions
whatsoever on the personal use, growth or possession of marijuana by
anyone over the age of 21. If you have 16 acres packed tightly with
premium bud and intend to keep it all for yourself (or give it away to
charity), you’ll be perfectly legal under this law.

According to Allen
St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the
Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), “The Oregon [initiative] has the most
idealism built into it; it’s the most encompassing. It’s a genuine
activist-born initiative.”

But expansiveness is
not necessarily a good thing in political contests, St. Pierre
acknowledges. “Generally speaking,” he says, “the more expansive the
initiative, the less likely it is to pass.”

ADVERTISING IT TO LEGALIZE IT: Paul Stanford, sponsor of the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act, at his THC Foundation office in Southeast Portland.

IMAGE: ronitphoto.com

The Oregon Cannabis Tax Act is certainly
ambitious. It doesn’t merely eliminate criminal penalties for
possession, it sets up a new broad-based framework of regulation.

The Act would create a
state-run commission called the Oregon Cannabis Commission, which would
operate similarly to the Oregon Liquor Control Commission. Every person
who wanted to do more than simply grow pot for themselves, such as
grow, process or sell marijuana for commercial purposes, would need to
obtain a license through this commission.

The OCC would be the
sole buyer of all marijuana in the state, and it would also be the sole
seller. The commission would determine the prices that marijuana growers
were allowed to charge, and set prices at its own OCC-run retail
stores.

Anyone apprehended
selling marijuana outside the state-run OCC licensing and distribution
system would be charged with a class C felony.

These stores would
essentially be analogous to liquor stores, but they would sell marijuana
instead. Nonetheless, the language of the initiative would not prohibit
bars or cafes from becoming OCC stores, as long as they were off-limits
to anybody under age 21.

All other commerce in marijuana would be illegal, although you’d be perfectly free to give it away to adults.

The current medical
marijuana system would remain intact, however; card-carrying patients
could continue to receive free marijuana from private growers, or could
buy it at cost from the OCC.

The proposed makeup of this commission has drawn some criticism.

Two of the OCC’s
commissioners would be appointed by the governor, while the other five
would be appointed by the marijuana growers and processors.

According to Clatsop
County District Attorney Josh Marquis, “It’d be like having an OLCC
where everybody was a liquor distributor.” The Oregoniancalled it “hard to take seriously.”

Oregon marijuana
activist John Sajo—who was responsible for 2010’s failed Measure 74 that
sought to legalize medical marijuana dispensaries in the state—points
to the Oregon State Board of Pharmacy, which has five pharmacists and
two members of the public.

“I think marijuana farmers obviously ought to have input into how the industry is regulated,” he tells WW. “As long as it isn’t too incestuous, I think there’s an easy legislative fix.”

Because
this measure is statutory—that is, it doesn’t amend the Oregon
Constitution—a lot of other items in the measure might also be subject
to such legislative tweaks.

Umatilla
County Sheriff John Trumbo, who opposes the measure, says, “The law as
written has no oversight; it’s got holes all over it. They don’t talk
about what the tax is going to be. They don’t talk about what the fees
are going to be.”

But unlike most government agencies, the OCC wouldn’t run on taxes. It would operate on pure profit.

And
because it sets its own prices at both ends of the business pipeline—and
makes all other trade in marijuana illegal—the OCC’s income would
presumably be more guaranteed than that of your average strong-armed
mafia contractor.

Most of this revenue would then wash back up into the state budget’s general fund, after operating expenses were paid.

The bill’s
co-sponsor, Paul Stanford, expects $140 million in annual revenues for
the state, but at press time he was unable to account for how he
obtained that figure.

Stanford also
estimates a $61 million annual savings in law-enforcement costs, based
on a 2010 study by pro-legalization Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron.

That same study by
Miron estimated only $37 million in potential tax revenues for Oregon.
When asked about Stanford’s revenue projections, Miron wrote, “Some
legalizers use estimates that, in my judgment, are extreme.”

Art Ayre of the
Oregon Department of Administrative Services—who was charged with
determining the potential financial effects of the Cannabis Tax Act—says
he threw up his hands when it came to estimating potential tax revenue.

“I pulled up information on marijuana cafes in Amsterdam,” he tells WW. “After spending probably a day on that, I realized I was making heroic assumptions.”

Ayre subsequently
marked all forms of potential revenue as “indeterminate.” Ayre’s
estimates for law-enforcement savings—gleaned from the Department of
Justice—were significantly lower than Stanford’s and Miron’s: They were a
mere $1.4 to $2.4 million.

To underscore this
general uncertainty surrounding the finances of marijuana measures, the
Washington State Office of Financial Management estimated this August
that Washington’s legalization initiative might bring in anywhere
between zero and $2 billion over five years—which is another way of
saying that pretty much anything could happen.

Measure for Measure: A breakdown of the Oregon, Washington and Colorado ballots

Only with a license from the Oregon Cannabis Commission. All sales are to the OCC, and the OCC sets all prices.

With a license from the state. All sales only to licensed retailers or processors.

With a license from the state. All sales only to licensed processors, who sell to retailers.

Can you smoke it in public?

Only in specially designated areas inaccessible to minors.

No.

No.

Where would you buy it?

State-run stores.

State-licensed stores.

State-licensed stores that sell only marijuana.

What’s the tax situation?

The OCC sets its own buying and selling price. Profit goes to the state, after costs.

25% excise tax at every transaction.

Taxed 15% excise tax at wholesale.

Where does the tax money go?

After costs: 90% to the state general fund, 7% to drug-abuse treatment, 1% for promotion of hemp industry, 1% for hemp-biodiesel development, 1% for drug education.

Largely split among treatment, education, the Washington Basic Health Plan and the state general fund.

First $40 million goes to school construction; the rest goes to the state general fund.

SOURCE: Websites of Oregon, Washington and Colorado Secretaries of State.

One perceived benefit of the Oregon measure that has
nothing to do with getting high is, if it passes, it will finally allow
large-scale industrial hemp farming in Oregon, a state whose climate is
well suited for it.

Hemp is an
agricultural variant of marijuana that has a very low amount of THC, the
chemical component in marijuana that gets you high.

Hemp is the
agricultural equivalent of a worker drone, robust and utilitarian but
far from exciting. It’s used to make rope and clothing and even ethanol
fuel.

Hemp is legal to
cultivate in Oregon, but the Oregon Department of Agriculture has balked
at challenging the federal prohibition of all strains of cannabis. Hemp
products sold here are imported from Canada and China.

But under the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act, hemp would be unregulated.

“In short order, the hemp market will dwarf the marijuana market,” Stanford says.

This hope for hemp’s
agricultural utility is precisely why one of the largest labor unions in
Oregon has endorsed Stanford’s marijuana legalization effort.

According to Dan
Clay, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local
555, “The fact of the matter is we have the opportunity to get on the
ground floor of what could be a really big deal. There are so many uses
[for hemp], and it seems like it grows very well in the Northwest.”

Clay
professes to not be overwhelmingly interested in legalizing
recreational marijuana. But he has been frustrated by recent economic
setbacks and is convinced agricultural hemp might be an answer for the
workers in his union.

“We’ve represented
employees at an ethanol plant for a number of years,” he says. “The
problem is getting corn to make into ethanol. They actually ceased
production of ethanol and laid everybody off. It just makes sense to me,
instead of relying on corn from the Midwest, why not work out
applications for a local product that we could grow in our area?
[Ethanol] can be made from hemp, or at least I’m told it can.”

There appears to be no organized opposition to the Oregon
Cannabis Tax Act, yet some think it will have a steep climb into the law
books.

A June survey by
Public Policy Polling showed 43 percent of Oregonians support marijuana
legalization, with 46 percent opposed. Eleven percent were undecided.

Polling in Colorado
by the same company showed 46 percent in support of legalization, with
38 percent opposed. Washington showed even stronger support, with 50
percent in favor and 37 percent opposed.

Of course, the
Colorado and Washington initiatives have received millions of dollars
from backers, producing television advertising campaigns.

“Oregon’s measure
doesn’t enjoy nearly the same amount of support,” says Allen St. Pierre,
NORML’s director. For one thing, the measures in the other two states
are receiving lots of support from billionaire Progressive Insurance
Chairman Peter Lewis: $1.1 million in Washington and $875,000 in
Colorado.

Also, the measures in
Washington and Colorado, St. Pierre says, “are more narrowly tailored
to polling and focus groups. They found out what people would vote for.”

Since
mid-March, Stanford’s campaign has raised only $330,000. Most of this
money came from Stanford’s own THCF. And nearly all of that money is
gone, spent on paid signature-gatherers. The campaign has about $960
cash on hand and $3,700 in debts.

By comparison, the
Oregon casino initiatives, Measures 82 and 83, have already raised more
than $1 million and are expected to raise and spend millions more. The
campaign to end gillnet fishing (Measure 81) has raised $500,000, and
the real-estate companies’ initiative to lower taxes on themselves
(Measure 79) has raised a little over $800,000.

None of Measure 80’s
endorsers—the NAACP, United Food and Commercial Workers or Oregon
Criminal Defense Lawyers Association—has contributed any money to help
bolster the measure. But singer Willie Nelson, a notorious pothead, did
throw $5,000 into the kitty.

The same lack of money holds for the opposition.

According to the
Oregon Secretary of State’s office, no funded organization has stepped
up to campaign against the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act. The Oregon District
Attorneys Association, the Oregon State Sheriffs Association and the
Oregon Association Chiefs of Police are all in opposition but don’t
intend to raise money.

If the Oregon
legalization campaign does manage to succeed, it would likely cause a
faceoff with a federal government that still considers marijuana highly
illegal.

Steve DeAngelo, the
owner of a chain of medical marijuana dispensaries in California, says
the federal response in his state—which has a medical marijuana law with
a retail component—has been for the feds to shut down the individual
operations of each medical marijuana vendor.

“There have been dozens of actions,” DeAngelo says, “threatening landlords with the seizure of their property.”

St. Pierre, NORML’s
director, says the Oregon landscape would be different. Because the
marijuana would be administered through the state itself, passage of the
bill would all but force a federal showdown. He welcomes it.

“The federal
government is laying waste to the medical marijuana industry in
California,” he says. “Looking forward, the state has to be involved.
Let’s go to the Supreme Court. It’s not a great court to get before, but
the court was set up to resolve these types of conflicts.

“And if all of these measures lose, it doesn’t matter. There will be initiatives in 2014, in 2016. It’s not going away.”

Positions of Elected Officials and Candidates

Some politicians want to avoid the issue of marijuana
legalization. According to Jim Moore, assistant professor of politics
and government at Pacific University and director of the school’s Tom
McCall Center for Policy Innovation, candidates aren’t yet sure that
it’s a mainstream issue. “All you do by taking a position is maybe tick
off a section of voters,” he says. “You bring their attention to it.” We
contacted (or tried to contact) a number of elected officials and
candidates for office to get their opinions.

Support Measure 80

City Commissioner Randy Leonard: “I see it as an
interesting contradiction that we allow drinking and prohibit marijuana.
I think arguably marijuana is the less harmful of the two.”

Congressional candidate Joyce Segers (D): “I support the legalization of marijuana and of hemp production, as long as minors are blocked in some way. I do support Measure 80.”

Mayoral candidate
Charlie Hales: “I think that the criminalization of marijuana has not
worked, is costly and does not reduce drug abuse.”

Mayoral candidate Jefferson Smith: “This is a decision for
the voters of Oregon, not the mayor of Portland. As mayor, I’ll be
focused on making the city work better for more people. As a voter, I
think marijuana prohibition isn’t working very well—diverting money away
from incarcerating serious offenders and vital services like treatment
and prevention. I’m inclined to favor the measure, but I want to hear
more from the proponents and opponents before I cast my vote.”

An aspect of Measure 80 some might find more than a little
surprising is that the seeds for marijuana could legally be sold at
your local 7 Dees or the Portland Nursery. This is because all seeds are
classified as hemp, which is unregulated under the measure.

Even 12- or
16-year-olds, who are otherwise restricted under the Cannabis Tax Act
from possessing marijuana, could legally buy seeds.

The measure’s
sponsor, Paul Stanford, isn’t perturbed by this. “It’s the same way a
kid can make wine or beer these days,” he says. “Except once they have
the wine or beer, it’s illegal. Like when I was a kid in Dallas, Texas, I
bought a wine-making kit at a local store. I never got around to making
the wine, though.”